AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft

[Bhartiya Sainik]

That is so misleading. EU was made to loose their manifacturing prowess very strategically. SO that they can become a good market to sell stuff, This is very evident in their decreasing Naval assets. It is unrelated to Russian production. China has devloped on the other hand sufficient threat perception for EU to be scared. the individual countries in EU don't have sufficient resources to go for their own aircraft devlopement, quite the drama happened with eurofighter, we are yet to see how successful that FCAS/GCAP comes out. EU is declining in their capacity to be self-reliant
point to be noted here is every country that imported better fighters instead of getting their own now is at the mercy of their overlords. UK, Israel, Germany all immported F-35.
Israel had strong base devloped in Lavi but no one is talking about newer GEn tech now. same with UK. why?
China who invested in j10/j7 by buying Lavi research from Israel despite its shortcomings now stand at much better level than so called EU who have history of aircraft devlopement.(Now they can only badmouth Chinese like us claiming half their stuff is copied)

Focussing only on 1 sentence can be misunderstanding. It is an observation & opinion about past, like an alternate reality, could be inaccurate but "misleading" is a very hostile & accusing word. You might have better knowledge on their economy, politics, etc but I've also watched many of their documentaries of EF-2000, Rafale. I'm aware that France & UK are historical rivals & their industrial colaborations had turmoil.
So from a tech PoV i also said that "Or at least a stealthy geometric version of EF-2000 & Rafale can be easily imagined". Engineers thinking something is 1 thing & their bosses approving it is another thing.
But now they intend to make something much better. Time/Evolution doesn't stop. So something sometime will defintely come out of FCAS & GCAP ultimately, especially when they have historical experience. Almost every project has ups & downs, disagreements.
They are NATO. China & Russia both are obvious concerns for them.
Which country has 100% self reliance on a complex projects & if yes then how many projects? NATO countries always shared education, technology, research & resources.
And IMO it is still possible that USA will develop a smaller, less capable exportable NGAD, a 6gen JSF.

Technology imported is technology lost..
we could have devloped our industry in 30 years but our policies oursourced manifacturing to China. I think you are not looking deeper when China grew at our expense by building their capacity. We were only focused on IT side which gave us good results but defense products require technological advancements in all fields not one or two. Political leadership is to be blamed here instead of private players who were thrown under the bus in face if Chinese dumping policies. Even now our leadership refused to tax chinese steel, when they are denying us technology by banning relocation of plants.
HAL,DRDO,ADA have monopoly because they are the only survivers of open markets where every other country leaveraged their money and experience against our newly born, yet to mature private players. Like a step father GOI threw this newborn players in the arena of global warriors without second thought. OFC only public sector survives such cruelty.

Yes, Defence require all kinds of R&D. I'm IT guy so i gave that example. People from other streams can give their domain example - mechanical, electrical, electronics, chemical & metallurgical, etc. A journalist or a person following geopilitics can share that aspect.
It is obvious that stalling R&D & fuelling imports happens by govt. decision only. But Defence projects is collective effort by GoI/MoD + DoD/PSUs + Armed forces. So for a regular citizen it is impossible to investigate like a detective where exactly is/are choke point(s). Some members are defenders & Avengers of different bodies of GoI/MoD/DoD, they may be having friends, family, relative in there & don't like hearing a word against those bodies even if it is true. Hence being a techie i stick to tech side & raise generic concerns over end results, timeline & global tech PoV.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

IWB versions of ARMs (Anti Radiation Missiles):
Kh-58UShKE, 650 Kg, 4.2-4.8m long, 380-400 mm diameter, 149 Kg warhead, 250 Km range, Mach 3.6
AGM-88G AARGM-ER, 467 Kg, 13'4/4.06m long, 292mm diameter, 68 Kg warhead, 300 Km range, Mach 2.9
But Rudram-1 cannot fit in AMCA'a IWB.
Rudram-1, 600 Kg, 18'/5.5m long, 340+/-mm diameter, 55 Kg warhead, 150-200 Km range, Mach 2
Rudram-2 & 3 are going to be even bigger.
If DoD makes IWB version of Rudram, it will make AMCA a dangerous SAM hunter.
There were Ramjet version missiles tested earlier but AARGM-ER uses modified solid fuel rocket motor.

View attachment 21731

After potential stealthy SAM hunter, AMCA has potential to engage naval & other surface targets also from stand-off distance.
If we compare some present weapons like AGM-158A JASSM, JSM/NSM, Storm-Shadow/SCALP-EG, Taurus KEPD-350, SOM-J, etc then they're still bigger than IWB, but they can be scaled down.

Below is example of JASSM & JSM with their original dimension compared to 4.2m long IWB:



But their adjusted size variants are being integrated in F-35. Similar weapons can be developed for AMCA too.

 

[Asmodeus]

I didn't mean to be hostile, it as purely for arguement purpose. I guess I am not good with words.
I am not aware that NATO share technology, I could be wrong though. The reason they do joint programs is they lack the funds/resources to do it solo like Russia/China/US. It is their weakness that they cannot mentain diverse fleet. It is a given that enemy will find your secrets/weakness during war and depending on a single platform like F-35/Eurofighter or even NGAD will prove to be fatal. Especially when they want to collectively go to war (won't be able to replenish as fast)
Russ with lesser GDP fielding 5th gen whatever it lacks is a much bigger achievement than partly producing F-35. Researching 5th gen and actually flying are very diff things. There was a case where Australian F-35 couln't even lock onto US assets, when Aussies went to modified it they were denied codes. I heard UK f-35 require codes before each sortie. This is what it means to be import dependent, Our IAF guys are playing it casually by saying technology delayed is technology denied. That is simply to shift the blame onto PSU's and import more.

 

[Asmodeus]

View: https://youtu.be/yvEEAnDRNLg?si=O7HbhgFHawIOykC8

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

After potential stealthy SAM hunter, AMCA has potential to engage naval & other surface targets also from stand-off distance.
If we compare some present weapons like AGM-158A JASSM, JSM/NSM, Storm-Shadow/SCALP-EG, Taurus KEPD-350, SOM-J, etc then they're still bigger than IWB, but they can be scaled down.

Below is example of JASSM & JSM with their original dimension compared to 4.2m long IWB:

View attachment 23132

But their adjusted size variants are being integrated in F-35. Similar weapons can be developed for AMCA too.

View attachment 23133

@SKC @Suryavanshi , any online mod/admin
The 3rd pic has become attachment rather than embedded pic. I couldn't edit 7 correct it. Can you guys make it embedded? Thanks.